A. Aiamperumal vs The Director (JIPMER)

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner, who completed the M.B.B.S. Degree Course way back in the year 2011 from PSG Medical College, Coimbatore, applied to JIPMER for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course for the academic year 2014-15. Since admission to Post Grade Medical Courses in JIPMER is made based upon the entrance examination conducted online, the petitioner appeared for an entrance examination on 23.02.2014. But, unfortunately, the petitioner was awarded only 404 marks out of 1000. Claiming that he should have got at least 634 marks, which could have ensured a seat for him in M.S. or M.D. Course, the petitioner applied for a copy of the answer sheet and the key answer. Since it was not given, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to produce the copy of his answer sheet bearing roll No. 1401741, along with answer key.

Heard Dr.A.Aiamperumal, petitioner appearing as party in person, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr.M.T.Arunan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.V.P.Raman, learned counsel for the third respondent.

All that the petitioner wants is only a copy of his own answer sheet and the key answer. But, the respondents resisted the prayer, primarily on the ground that in a specialised examination, such as the entrance examination for Post Graduate Medical Courses, it is not good for the institution to furnish key answers and the answer sheets. It is the contention of the respondents that in courses relating to super specialties, the candidates understanding pattern of examination and cracking the examination mode is very high, if several persons take question papers, key answers and copies of answer sheets. In other words, the respondents contend that larger public interest demands that the copies sought by the petitioner cannot be given.

It appears that when the petitioner made an application originally on 26.3.2014 under the Right to Information Act, for the copies of his answer sheet and the answer key, he was informed that he could inspect the same during working hours on any working day in the academic centre. The petitioner also went to the office on 26.5.2014, but he declined to peruse his answer paper and the key answers through the online download. In other words, he wanted hard copies of the answer sheets and answer key, but did not merely want to look at the screen.

But, unfortunately for the respondents, the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, . In the said case, the Supreme Court held that though indiscriminate and impractical demand or direction under the Right to Information Act for disclosure of all and sundry information would be counterproductive, the Court made it clear that the answer sheets of a candidate who participated in a public examination, have to be given.

However, relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Vikrant Bhuria [LPA No. 487 of 2011 dated 28.5.2012], Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education has to be understood in the context in which it was made. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Court is obliged to look into the practicality and made a distinction between indiscriminate and impractical demands and the right flowing under the Right to Information Act.

I have carefully considered the above submissions.

It is seen form the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education that the Court framed three issues for its consideration. The first issue framed by the Supreme Court was as to whether the examinee''s right to information under the Right to Information Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or to taking certified copies thereof. The third issue framed for consideration was as to whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer book in fiduciary relationship and consequently, it has no obligation to give an inspection under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act or not.

In answer to the first question, the Supreme Court held in paragraph 26 that answer books do not fall under the exempted categories under Section 8. Therefore, the Court held that every examinee is entitled to have access to his evaluated answer books by either inspecting them or by taking certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to be exempted under Section 8(1)(e).

The decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court arose out of an application filed under the Right to Information Act, for the production of certified copies of original question papers of Mch Super-specialty Entrance Examinations conducted from 2005-2010 and the demand for certified copies of corrected answers of all respective questions asked in Mch Super-specialty Entrance Examination conducted during the period from 2005-2010. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the information is protected under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act.

But, in the case on hand, the petitioner wants copies of his own answer books and not copies of any one else. He also wants answer key. These two information will not fall under Section 8(1)(e) and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education.

Therefore, the objections of the respondents are overruled and the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide a certified copy of the answer sheets to the petitioner bearing Roll No. 1401741, along with necessary key for the online PG Entrance Examination conducted on 23.02.2014, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2014 are closed.